Letter of Authority

Mr_Ted

Hi

I have a situation whereby a family member has ongoing issues that need to be addressed and dealt with, but due to a condition of them having stress and anxiety issues they are not particularly able to either state, remember, or take on board proceedings and issues in either a cognisant, logical, or manner that reflects the true facts raised at meetings with the relevent authorities.

The authorities themselves will NOT recognise the fact that this person is not in a state of mind to either state relevent fact, defend themself, or respond to their opinion and questions, and to allow someone to attend appointments and meeting with them to act and state matters that they actually have knowledge of.

I am extremely annoyed, as they have been told of the situation, and this situation is putting this person at an extreme disadvantage with possible adverse effects on their life, not to understate the case that the authorities in question are making knee jerk reaction and statements NOT based on the true facts, that are judgemental in the extreme, and there is always a bias that they are always right and can do no wrong, even when they are NOT right and DO do things wrong :mad:

What I need to know is how it can be positively addressed so that a person more cognisant can attend meetings with them to act and state facts that they have full knowledge of on their behalf, and to have full knowledge of proceedings so as to eliminate any risks of a miscarriage of judgement.

To this end I have drafted the following for submission to the authorities and would request some professional advise please?

To Whom It May Concern

I, ***********, hereby authorise ************, and/or **********, to attend appointments or meetings with me and on my behalf, at my discretion, and to have full knowledge of proceedings, and to be allowed to state or comment on my behalf in respect of said proceedings, and to request, supply, or receive any relevant information in respect of said proceedings on my behalf, during or thereafter, without duress or reprisal!
Signed

---

Witnessed

---

Print Name


Do you think this would be accepted to enable proper representation, or do you have any alternatives to offer please?


I know this is somewhat vague in respect of the authorities in question which is due to this being of an extremely personal nature, however I may be able to state more by PM


Many Thanks in advance for any advice offered!

fluffnutter

What authorities in particular? For example, the medical profession actively welcomes a family member or friend. Who are you having trouble with?

eta. oops, just seen you're reluctant to share.

Mr_Ted

fluffnutter wrote: »

oops, just seen you're reluctant to share.

Publically and for gossip yes, I need a professional opinion or factual advice rather than debate please;)

rachbc

I guess the problem might be if they are not compis mentis enough to take in the meetings and what is being said to/about them are they compis mentis enough to sign the letter authorising someone to act on their behalf? If they can logically and sensibly make that decision (to ask someone to act on their behalf) then surely they can make other logical sensible choices and if they can't then they shouldn't be signing the letter because by default they aren't able to understand the implication of so doing - what if the person they were authorising to act had pressured them to do so or wasn't truely acting in their best interests etc.

For example to get Power of Attorny it needs to be set up whilst the 'giver' of the power is in sound mind to give it so has to be done in advance of any problems arising. If its gone pass that point it has to go through a different process with the Court of Protection.

Mr_Ted

rachbc wrote: »

I guess the problem might be if they are not compis mentis enough to take in the meetings and what is being said to/about them are they compis mentis enough to sign the letter authorising someone to act on their behalf? If they can logically and sensibly make that decision (to ask someone to act on their behalf) then surely they can make other logical sensible choices and if they can't then they shouldn't be signing the letter because by default they aren't able to understand the implication of so doing - what if the person they were authorising to act had pressured them to do so or wasn't truely acting in their best interests etc.
For example to get Power of Attorny it needs to be set up whilst the 'giver' of the power is in sound mind to give it so has to be done in advance of any problems arising. If its gone pass that point it has to go through a different process with the Court of Protection.

It is not a situation of someone being incapable, as anyone who is aware of how stress anxiety and depression can affect responses when in a situation of stress that causes anxiety, its then a matter of being able to think logically and respond appropriately and having the support of someone who knows the history and issues and respond appropriately!

It is an extremely unfortunate fact that authority has an extremely bad habit of making and stating judgemental statements that are inflamatory to the recipient, especially when they are biased towards the statements of others that are untruthful and devisive!
When a persons mind is already confused, to be able to respond appropriately under duress is very difficult to recall the full facts and timelines, which is where support is needed!

There seems to be NO unbiased decision processes, and also no attempt to investigate the FULL facts BEFORE being judgemental from certain authorities, just a calculated defensive response of THAT authority, at the expense of rights to be heard in a fair and in consideration of the effects on ALL concerned in long term complicated issues.

Basically a COMPLETE LACK OF TACT, and distortion of CONTEXT, as exist in the case in question, that actually exastabates a situation, NOT RESOLVE it!

It has to be said that facts on the issues that are being distorted in this case have been voiciforacly offered, with documentary evidence, independently, and without any bias, but been totally refused, THAT is in my opinion UNFAIR!

FACTS are what are important, and I would add that although it involves a family member, we understand the FACTS and history better than anyone, AND we do not condone any misdemeanors of the family member, but are being denied a voice or to support what is blatant untruth by another party involve, who is also actively being malicious and influencing others!

This as I said is not an issue I am prepared to debate publically, what I need and ask is will the draft letter I have stated be given any credence please?

sulkisu

I would have thought that the person in question could have whoever he/she wanted to act on their behalf or accompany them to meetings etc. Surely they can simply involve/include you if they wish? Or are you saying that they have not asked for and/or do not want your involvement?

Gingernutty

Mr_Ted wrote: »

This as I said is not an issue I am prepared to debate publically, what I need and ask is will the draft letter I have stated be given any credence please?

To answer your question, the letter has no standing in law but there might be a chance that it is taken as an expression of your relative's wishes.

You probably know about POA and Deputyship of the Court of Protection and if you have not gone down that route, then you probably have your reasons.

Taking the letter into account, the "authority" might allow you to sit with your relative and act on their behalf, however, they may not be obligated to accommodate you so be prepared to be knocked back.

If it is a legal thing, then you may be able to act as a McKenzie friend.

ValHaller

Mr_Ted wrote: »

I know this is somewhat vague in respect of the authorities in question which is due to this being of an extremely personal nature, however I may be able to state more by PM

You are not going to get a meaningful answer unless you specify the authority. For example

• police
• medics
• employers

can all be construed as an authority. But the advice would be very different. If it is the police and the person is being investigated, then only a solicitor will be permitted. If it is an employer, an accredited Trades Union rep will suffice, even if the union is not recognised by the employer

Errata

Who on earth drafted that letter? A public bar barrister?

Mr_Ted

Errata wrote: »

Who on earth drafted that letter? A public bar barrister?

:pIf you have NO constructive comment to make troll, and no professional opinion or experience, take a hike, you dont impress me, or probably anyone else, apart from having nothing better to do than criticise

Mr_Ted

ValHaller wrote: »

You are not going to get a meaningful answer unless you specify the authority. For example

• police
• medics
• employers

can all be construed as an authority. But the advice would be very different. If it is the police and the person is being investigated, then only a solicitor will be permitted. If it is an employer, an accredited Trades Union rep will suffice, even if the union is not recognised by the employer

It is neither of those, but thanks!